Your responses to partner's 2 Clubs opening bid?

[cartruck]

When I played controls, my 2NT was specifically three kings to get some small chance at right side when we play in NT. Now, I prefer 2H as an immediate "double negative" (to quickly tell my sad story and to caution opener against over enthusiasm), and 2D waiting with a king or better. If opener raises my weak 2H to 3H, then I can pass with a very bad hand. If opener bids a different suit, then I treat it as a one round force.

 

3 Kings is great for a 2NT bid over your partner's strong 2♣ opening. My father and I have a twist in it that adds Ace and King in different suits OR 3 Kings for 2NT. That allows for the clever 2♠ bid that specifically shows AK in the same suit, which is lovely to know after a 2♣ opening.

[Kaitlyn S]

In any event, I prefer 2D waiting. Jerry Helms has a hand that illustrates the problem with steps.

 

Something like this:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj853h7dakqtca6&n=s2hak643d98654c72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2hp2sp3dp4np5dp5np6dp7dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

This auction shows 2D waiting so that 2H & 2S is reserved for a 5-card or longer suit with 2 of the top 3 honors.

 

When you play control steps, your first response is 2S, so opener starts at 3S and the auction becomes really difficult (especially as 4H isn't forcing; after all, an ace and a king doesn't guarantee safety at the five-level on a misfit.)

 

Now, of course, one hand means nothing by itself but I think it's fairly trivial to show cases where even the 2H rebid takes up too much room to find the right game when opener has hearts. As pointed out, control steps work well when the only thing the opener needs to know are controls. Playing in the right strain is much more often the decision to be made.

 

First of all, I would humbly suggest that control responses are more of an intermediate level discussion than an expert one.

 

I'm surprised nobody said this earlier. A common misconception is that if you want experts to answer your question, you post in the expert forum! (I confess to having thought that myself when I first came here.) However, experts will answer your question in any of the forums; many are very helpful and are willing to learn. The danger of posting here is that occasionally one of the less nice experts will see your post and say essentially what I just said but in a much more obnoxious way.

 

This is the description for this forum:

 

Expert-Class Bridge

Forum designated for expert bridge players to discuss more advanced topics.

[cartruck]

The biggest advantage of Flannery actually lies in the hands when you do not open 2♦. It particularly takes some serious weight off of auctions when one starts auction 1♥. Also in competition. Knowing that pd can not have side 4 card spades and a minimum hand helps a lot.

 

Unless you get interference over 1♥. Then you lose the spade fit sometimes. Flannery gets you to game quickly somewhere. Nothing else I have played does that. But, I still don't like it that much lmao

[cartruck]

In any event, I prefer 2D waiting. Jerry Helms has a hand that illustrates the problem with steps.

 

Something like this:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj853h7dakqtca6&n=s2hak643d98654c72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2hp2sp3dp4np5dp5np6dp7dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

This auction shows 2D waiting so that 2H & 2S is reserved for a 5-card or longer suit with 2 of the top 3 honors.

 

When you play control steps, your first response is 2S, so opener starts at 3S and the auction becomes really difficult (especially as 4H isn't forcing; after all, an ace and a king doesn't guarantee safety at the five-level on a misfit.)

 

Now, of course, one hand means nothing by itself but I think it's fairly trivial to show cases where even the 2H rebid takes up too much room to find the right game when opener has hearts. As pointed out, control steps work well when the only thing the opener needs to know are controls. Playing in the right strain is much more often the decision to be made.

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody said this earlier. A common misconception is that if you want experts to answer your question, you post in the expert forum! (I confess to having thought that myself when I first came here.) However, experts will answer your question in any of the forums; many are very helpful and are willing to learn. The danger of posting here is that occasionally one of the less nice experts will see your post and say essentially what I just said but in a much more obnoxious way.

 

This is the description for this forum:

 

Expert-Class Bridge

Forum designated for expert bridge players to discuss more advanced topics.

 

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

 

Swap the J of Spades for the Queen and I would.

[manudude03]

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

 

I'm as solid as they come when it comes to opening 2C, and even I'm opening 2C on that, you are almost cold for game opposite xxx xxxx xxx xxx

[cartruck]

I'm as solid as they come when it comes to opening 2C, and even I'm opening 2C on that, you are almost cold for game opposite xxx xxxx xxx xxx

 

It's just not how my father and I play. It is borderline, but you don't have 8 1/2 tricks. I like to have that.

[steve2005]

Playing SAYC (heavily modified), playing weak 2 Majors and modified Flannery for 2♦ (weak 2♦ bid is pretty worthless), how do you respond to your partner's strong and artificial 2♣ opening?

 

I like Controls, and here's how it goes:

 

2♦ = No Aces

2♥ = 1 Ace or 2 Kings

2♠ = AK in the same suit

2NT = Ace and King in different suits or 3 Kings

3♣ = Anything better

 

What do you all play?

Don't say what to do with 1 King, presume 2D.

Many consider Flannery one of the worst conventions (myself included lol)

[cartruck]

I'm as solid as they come when it comes to opening 2C, and even I'm opening 2C on that, you are almost cold for game opposite xxx xxxx xxx xxx

 

I even just called my father, he wrote down the hand, and said he's open 1♠. It's legit. :D

[johnu]

Not when the opponents preempt after the 2♦ bid, like they frequently do.

 

Frequently? Are you playing goulash bridge?

[ggwhiz]

Controls works well when opener has a shapely hand with self-supporting suit(s) and only needs top cards for slam. Unfortunately that's a very small subset of 2C openers.

 

The general principle "strain before level" applies here. Find your fit first then determine whether slam is on or not. Where responder can bid suits naturally, opener may be able to bid two suits over high-level interference rather than one. ahydra

 

Yes to the 2nd para but not knowing if pard has an Ace or a couple of Kings and not knowing where they are hardly helps most of my shapely strong hands.

 

We cater to the most common rebid after 2♣ being 2nt and bid 2♦ waiting even with a good 5 card major so we can transfer over that rebid. Also 2♥ is 0-4 with no A or K with 2nt next being the only non force just because it's simple clean lines on a low frequency auction.

 

As for showing controls before finding a place to play that ship sailed before RKC with specific Kings and modern cue bidding. I note that there are references in here to Flannery (arguably less than 1% play it anymore) and Culbertson tricks (who remembers what those are?) from people that gave up on controls first.

[miamijd]

A rather common structure is the following:

 

2D: GF, unable to make any other bid (could be just enough not to bid 2H or quite good)

2H: Double Negative

2S: Positive in spades (some play positive in H)

2NT: Positive in hearts (some play positive in spades)

3C: Positive in clubs

3D: Positive in diamonds

3H: Six-card heart suit with 2 of the top three honors and nothing outside (some play S suit)

3S: Six-card spade suit with 2 of the top three honors and nothing outside (some play H suit)

3NT: Seven-card suit (any suit) headed by AKQ and nothing outisde

4C/D/H/S: Seven-card one-loser suit above the suit bid and nothing outside (so 4C shows D; 4D shows H; 4H shows S; and 4S shows C).

[Vampyr]

A rather common structure is the following:

 

2D: GF, unable to make any other bid (could be just enough not to bid 2H or quite good)

2H: Double Negative

2S: Positive in spades (some play positive in H)

2NT: Positive in hearts (some play positive in spades)

3C: Positive in clubs

3D: Positive in diamonds

3H: Six-card heart suit with 2 of the top three honors and nothing outside (some play S suit)

3S: Six-card spade suit with 2 of the top three honors and nothing outside (some play H suit)

3NT: Seven-card suit (any suit) headed by AKQ and nothing outisde

4C/D/H/S: Seven-card one-loser suit above the suit bid and nothing outside (so 4C shows D; 4D shows H; 4H shows S; and 4S shows C).

 

Roth is not bad, but many prefer to play that their 2♣ bid is GF unless the lowest range of balanced hands included. If that range is quite low, e.g. If playing Kokish, major-suit negatives are more useful.

[m1cha]

2NT = I don't want to play in this partnership any more

With one partner, we play a similar system and feel the same about the 2NT bid. We agreed for it to show hands where we want to play whatever but not 2NT. The result was a Lebensohl-like convention puppeting to 3♣ upon which responder can

 

pass: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ clubs, or bid

3♦: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ diamonds,

3♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 5-5 in the majors,

3NT: 4 - 7 HCP with 5-5 in the majors.

 

Opener can refuse the transfer and bid a forcing 3♦ instead, upon which

 

3♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ clubs, or bid

3♠: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ diamonds,

3NT: 4 - 7 HCP with 5-5 in the majors,

4♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 5-5 in the majors.

 

Even if this is not the optimal use of the 2NT bid, it should be better than risking your partnership. ;)

 

We arrived there after reading a comment from Marty Bergen who said if there is a bid you don't want to use, you shouldn't set it to 'undiscussed' because if you do, it will be misused and result in a desaster. Rather you should assing to that bid an exotic meaning that never comes up. His context was, iirc, jump rebids by the 2♣ opener. Anyway, we found that remark very wise.

[Winstonm]

I worked on this a few years back and found that there simply isn't the room to handle all the hand types. I decided the most frequent type of 2C openers were NT hands and one-suiters and catered the system around that. Responders first duty was to show a balanced or semi-balanced hand or to show shortness with a game-forcing hand.

 

2C-2D became a balanced or semi-balanced game forcing hand.

2H-Lower NT or hearts with a further 2S relay to clarify

2S-spades

2N-Higher NT

 

2C-2H was the bad hand, double negative type

2C-2S, 2N, 3C, 3D all showed shortness in the next higher suit and game-force values

 

 

 

Anyway, you get the idea. Work on approach-forcing 2C openers long enough and you will adopt a strong 1C system. :)

[sfi]

Even if this is not the optimal use of the 2NT bid, it should be better than risking your partnership. ;)

 

We arrived there after reading a comment from Marty Bergen who said if there is a bid you don't want to use, you shouldn't set it to 'undiscussed' because if you do, it will be misused and result in a disaster. Rather you should assign to that bid an exotic meaning that never comes up. His context was, iirc, jump rebids by the 2♣ opener. Anyway, we found that remark very wise.

 

It wasn't a risk to any of the partnerships I've played it in - it was a firm agreement that was written in the system notes, usually with the note that we weren't allowed to psych it. It's never been used, although a couple of times I've wished for that agreement with other ex-partners. Both because they would occasionally do something silly like bid 2NT and mess up a perfectly well-planned auction, and because it is much less messy than actually discussing the partnership break-up.

 

Bergen's advice is mostly sensible, although you don't want to have to use much effort remembering the exotic meanings. Otherwise it just becomes trivia that stops you remembering the important stuff.

[nige1]

I like a modified 2♣ opener that includes BAL 20-21 HCP, with reverse Kokish. i.e.

 

• 2N = BAL. 22-23.
• 2♣ = ART. GF. OR BAL 20-21. OR BAL 24+.

Replies to 2♣ show controls

• 2♦ = ART. 0-1 Control. At most a K.
• 2♥ = ART. 2 Controls. A or 2 Ks.
• 2♠ = ART. 3 Controls. A & K.
• 2N = ART. 3 Controls. 3 Ks. (Hence right-siding).
• 3♣ = ART. 4 Controls. and so on.

Opener's rebid after 2♣ - 2♦ -;

• 2♥ = PUP. Reverse Kokish. BAL 20-21 or F/G 5+ ♥s.
• 2♠ = F/G 5+ ♠s.
• 2N = BAL. 24+.
• 3m = F/G. 5+ bid suit.
• 3M = NAT. Canapé . 4 bid suit & 5+ ♦s.

After reverse Kokish 2♣ - 2♦ -; 2♥ -

• 2♠ = ART. Normal forced response.
• 2N = ART. 0-4. 5+ ♣s & 5 + ♦s
• 3m = NAT. 0-4. 6+ suit.

Thus, when responder has a weak hand, sometimes, we can stop a the 3-level.

[fromageGB]

In the context of no Kokish, and a 2♦ open that includes 3-suiters, 2♣ openings are single or two-suited, or 23 balanced. I like a positive 2♦ that shows at least an ace or a king, and a negative 2♥. Any higher bids are 6+card transfers.

 

After a positive and opener has bid a suit, I like a method where next step denies 3 cards, to allow opener to show a second suit, while any other bid (that shows 3+ card fit) shows number of ace/kings in steps. Plenty of room to ask for strength, or cue beneath game. Knowing the number of ace/kings allows opener to check on aces then desist knowing of lack of kings, or check which, as the number is already known.

[cartruck]

Don't say what to do with 1 King, presume 2D.

Many consider Flannery one of the worst conventions (myself included lol)

 

Gotta have 2 Kings or you can't play. Don't know how to fit 1 King into that system.

[cartruck]

To clarify:

 

2♣ opener in my system shows 22+ Points (Our points system is heavily modified, Aces = 4 1/2 points (usually - have to deduct at times), etc.

 

When my father and I open 2♣ (very rarely) we got the goods.

[cartruck]

Opening 2♣ on weak hands is Fool's Gold. Don't do it.

[RedSpawn]

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

 

Swap the J of Spades for the Queen and I would.

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit;
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10;
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors.

This hand is functionally equivalent to a 26 point hand so why am I treating it like an allegedly weak 21 HCP hand? If you have a hand that can be revalued at 26 points all things considered, start the bidding at 2♣ because 1♠ is a huge understatement.

 

Give 2♣ its just due!

[nullve]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj853h7dakqtca6&n=s2hak643d98654c72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2hp2sp3dp4np5dp5np6dp7dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

 

Swap the J of Spades for the Queen and I would.

Ok, not enough hcp the way you play.

 

To clarify:

 

2♣ opener in my system shows 22+ Points (Our points system is heavily modified, Aces = 4 1/2 points (usually - have to deduct at times), etc.

 

When my father and I open 2♣ (very rarely) we got the goods.

So why isn't the hand worth 22+ hcp? Or is there some other reason why you can't open 2♣?

[Vampyr]

I like a modified 2♣ opener that includes BAL 20-21 HCP, with reverse Kokish. i.e.

 

We play this. Why do you call it reverse Kokish?

Thus, when responder has a weak hand, sometimes, we can stop at the 3-level.

 

 

Consider playing major-suit negatives. Then you can sometimes stop at the 2-level.

 

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit;
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10;
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors.

This hand is functionally equivalent to a 26 point hand so why am I treating it like an allegedly weak 21 HCP hand? If you have a hand that can be revalued at 26 points all things considered, start the bidding at 2♣ because 1♠ is a huge understatement.

 

Give 2♣ its just due!

 

You are counting "quality points" for your ♠ and ♦ honours over and over.

[RedSpawn]

We play this. Why do you call it reverse Kokish?

 

 

Consider playing major-suit negatives. Then you can sometimes stop at the 2-level.

 

 

 

You are counting "quality points" for your ♠ and ♦ honours over and over.

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit; [Length points are an indication of trick-taking potential -- a 6 card ♠ suit has more trick taking potential than a 4 card spade suit--this is irrespective of honor holding]
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10; [Aces and 10's are undervalued so having a total of 4 of them should count as 13 points instead of indicated 12 points].
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and [The ♠ suit having 3 of 5 honors further increases the trick taking potential -- that is inherently different than the 6 card suit itself]
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors. -- This suit is basically 4 tricks and is worth more than 9 points. If two aces are allegedly worth 8 points, then I am inclined to believe that AKQ10♦ is worth more than 2 aces and a mere J♦]

 

I want you to honestly tell me how much you think AKQ10♦ is worth in point values because to me, saying it is worth 9 points is an understatement.

 

All things considered, this hand is worth 26 points, but if you want to subtract off the length points for ♠, no problem--we are at 24 points, so why are we still downgrading this hand to a 1♠ open with a revalued 24 points? Under NO circumstances is this just a 21 point hand! This hand is too well controlled from the rooter to the tooter to be downgraded to 1♠

 

Give 2♣ its just due.

[Vampyr]

Obviously I read your other post, because I responded to it. Why did you repeat it? You had nothing more to add.

 

You are boring.